Too good to be true?

[rhettyeakley]

Originals:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.18776/

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.18581/

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.19674/

[nsaddict]

Lots of bidding action at the end. And high feedback bidders too?

[GoCubsGo32]

I mean, if you look close you can see the printing lines from a cheap printer. Not to mention the white edge where they cut it from and pasted it on an original cabinet mount....It's sad.

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Originals:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.18776/

this link is really helpful, even to my non-expert eyes.

Looking at the Elmer Chickering cabinet, you can see that the handwriting on the original (top photo) goes from the photo part onto the cabinet mount. Whereas on the ebay one (bottom one), the handwriting is all part of the photo, but the photo includes what had been part of the mount.

[nat]

Who has $800 to spend on old cabinet cards, who also falls for this sort of thing? You would think that anyone who meets the first condition wouldn't meet the second.

[Cozumeleno]

He actually says the authenticity is unknown, too, in the original/reprint category. I can't imagine most of the bidders were paying attention to that.

I wish eBay would make sure that category is up at the top with the other bidding information and not buried further down by the description.

[pbspelly]

Based on the history and what the seller normally sells (i.e non-baseball stuff), I think it is quite possible the seller did not know the items are repros.